First, she attacks the claim that the definitions in the bill are vague, by insisting that PROTECT IP is written "so narrowly focused that it covers only websites whose sole purpose is to provide or point to stolen content." Right. But, if Swartsel is going to claim that the entrepreneurs didn't read the bill, then the very least she could have done was to have actually read our letter. In it, we explain, quite clearly, the history of folks like the MPAA, insisting that pretty much every new technology's "sole purpose is to provide or point to stolen content." Need I remind the MPAA that their fearless leader, and the guy whose name sits on the building they now work from once said:

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."

Forgive tech entrepreneurs building new platforms to allow for better distribution, promotion and monetization of films for worrying about which of them is going to be declared the next "Boston Strangler."

And, let's notice that Swartsel fails to mention that when MPAA members Warner Bros. and Paramount were asked to help create a list that named sites dedicated to infringement, as per the vague definition above, that it included sites like The Internet Archive, as well as some of the key platforms used by artists today, like SoundCloud and Vimeo. Boston Stranglers, all of them.

Next up, she mocks the idea that tech startups might face any legitimate "burdens" from PROTECT IP. And then follows that up by listing out some of the very burdens that we would face under the bill -- including very vague rules about "reasonable measures" that tech companies will have to take to stay in compliance. And what she leaves out is that the MPAA and people like Swartsel are the ones who think they get to define what's reasonable here.

Want proof? Looks no further than EMI insisting that it gets to decide if MP3tunes is in compliance with the DMCA. Or MPAA-member Viacom suing YouTube for a billion dollars, claiming that it was not in compliance with the DMCA because it didn't magically figure out how to block all infringing content. And, really, just look at how much time, effort and money have gone into those two lawsuits alone. The entrepreneurs who signed the letter know that when the MPAA comes to sue, saying that their efforts didn't meet its definition of "reasonable," they're about to end up in court for years, and have to pay millions of dollars to do so.

I'm sorry, Ms. Swartsel, but to a new startup building the next great platform, having to spend millions of dollars and a few years in court is a significant burden that can put many out of business. Just ask Veoh and ReplayTV -- two companies that were, in fact, effectively put out of business by similar lawsuits. Until Ms. Swartsel has to sit in front of her investors and explain to them why we have to spend the money they gave us fighting the MPAA in court, rather than building the next great platform, I'm not really sure she's in a position to comment.

Next up, she claims that the arguments of Paul Vixie, on how PROTECT IP will break key parts of the internet and damage internet security have been "debunked." That's just funny. By "debunked" she means that the MPAA put out a silly statement that effectively said, "hey, if we break the internet, you smart tech people should just go fix it again."

Finally, she does the typical "but think of the starving artist" argument, by calling out Jason Stall and Ellen Seidler, the two poster children for the MPAA for filmmakers who complain about piracy, but fail to actually put in place smarter business models. It's silly to get into a pissing match over this, but why don't we look at filmmakers like Kevin Smith who has pointed out that fans downloading his films "leads to converts," and he then does amazing things to give those converts all sorts of reasons to buy -- such as by using the awesome TopSpin platform. Need we mention that TopSpin's CEO, Ian Rogers, signed the letter worrying about PROTECT IP? Or how about all of the movies currently being funded by Kickstarter, often raising much more money than they would have received otherwise. Andy Baio, who helped build KickStarter, is among those who signed the letter as well.

These entrepreneurs are very reasonably concerned. They're the ones who are actually powering the next generation of fillmmakers and helping them make money. They're not whining about "piracy," but are focused on utilizing these new platforms, the same platforms that the MPAA wants to burden the next time MPAA member studios decide to put them on a list...

If the MPAA was really concerned about filmmakers, it would help them embrace these new platforms that help them make money. Not line them up in a witchhunt for new Boston Stranglers.

Google instead of paying billions of dollars to Disney and NBC should really invest that money in making their own content, I'm sure many Hollywood celebrities would love to get a piece of those billions.

Re:

Well we all knew you were coming but when has Mike ever put up give it all away and pray... he has actually given criticism against people who do that. What he has said is make sure people have a reason to buy. Given people a reason to buy and connecting with your fans/buyers is the way to go and will generally help you in the long run.

Anyway the whole point of this article is highlight the ridiculous argument of the MPAA. The flippant way the dismiss the arguments to be is quite disturbing and I hope one day they will learn.

Re:

No, they're in the content DISTRIBUTION business. And they're complaining that we don't like their distribution model. They sue people for creating new distribution mechanisms, not for creating new content. See?

Re:

If you are in any business, including the content industry, then you are in fact also in the business model business. Markets are constantly changing. If you think that you have discovered the ultimate business model that will last forever then you are doomed to fail in a surprisingly short time.

VCR's were denounced as jack the ripper, but the industry finally embraced tape rentals and sales. Very shortly after that the industry was saying that video were vital and they could not possibly survive on theater and TV showings alone.

Re: Re:

Yet, when it comes right down to it, everything about the old "CwF" thing is about give it away and pray. You give them X (music, movies, software, games) hoping that a few of them will pay a premium price for something "scarce". Mike can beat around the bush, but it is all give it away and pray, because there is nothing binding one to the other.

One of the reasons content creators use studios and sign record deals and all of those things is because they don't want to be in the business model business, they want to be in the content business. They make content, license it / contract it to a studio or label, and stay out of the way.

They don't want to have to give it away and hope someone pays for hoodies or miniputt games.

"Next up, she claims that the arguments of Paul Vixie, on how PROTECT IP will break key parts of the internet and damage internet security have been "debunked." That's just funny. By "debunked" she means that the MPAA put out a silly statement that effectively said, "hey, if we break the internet, you smart tech people should just go fix it again." "

Another piece of double speak. It's been debunked because the very paper that Vixie is quoted in admits that DNSSEC isn't widely used, and is in fact not an integral part of today's internet.

Re:

thats what you dont seem to realise. without those in the 'experimental business' sector, there will be no 'content business' or any other technologically advanced business for that matter. do film makers, for example, use computer aided graphics? of course they do. where do you think they got those from? pulled them out of their arse, already to go? moron!

Re:

DNSSEC is used by more than half the internet. They also ignore that the CA Certificate system would be broken as well. Basically, if your government passes this bill, ICANN will have to leave the US, or will be routed around. Anyone that thinks this result would increase US control over the 'net is insane, and deserves the future they get.

Re: Re: Re:

ok, with the give away and pray guess what in the case of videogames and to be more presise the mmorpg genre is has several games that are as you say given away, the buisnes model of those games is creating vitual fancy luxurys that are sold to the player and guess what seems like its working for some of them, so they are not given away and waiting they are traying to please the fans of said games given items that they want to purchase and thatswhat mike and alot of people is traying to say to poeple like you that there is always a way to monetise

Re: Re:

Re:

I think this highlights the theme of all your reasoning. If it is not widely used today, we must not invest in it. Future distribution models are not working today, therefore they should never exist.

The reason DNSSEC is used is for security reasons, not for infringement reasons. If you create a law that will prevent a new and powerful security protocol from being developed; that law is harming future security.

Mike, the content owners DO get control!

"... the MPAA and people like Swartsel are the ones who think they get to define what's reasonable here" -- As opposed to your notions that they should get NO say, besides that they're dinosaurs doing the whole biz entirely wrong. Gotcha.

As I've said, I merely want to roll back some excesses based on obvious facts. You freetards wish to DICTATE how the whole industry works while demanding FREE content.

Yet again I have to wonder if Mike isn't a clever shill for the industry, because his arguments actually drive one to supporting the industry.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, let's be fair...

"Give it away and pray" works albeit in a somewhat limited fashion. Basically, you're trusting that people will like your content enough to purchase.

When you have a stepping stone in place, that gives fans and artists better tools to negotiate between themselves, then that's CwF+RtB. Things such as chats with people that like your work. Small things such as figuring out what's good and bad about a game. Commentary on decisions made in a book, game or movie. Those are tools that give more success than the GIAP model.

Re:

I'm not sure if that's a great idea for the engineers at Google. They make platforms that are successful. In terms of content, that's not their forte. Think about having an engineer acting for the first time. It just doesn't compute.

Look before you leap.

"to a new startup building the next great platform, having to spend millions of dollars and a few years in court is a significant burden that can put many out of business. Just ask Veoh and ReplayTV"

They should carefully consider FIRST! Most of the companies and individuals whom you write pieces on are explicitly trying to skirt copyright in order to skim money from the content that others have produced. -- Don't do that people, isn't honest for a start, it's grifting.

2nd, I want to see your concern for the people who risk money to PRODUCE content, Mike. Even if I dislike their products (in general), I don't want to see their efforts stolen and enriching every smartass who can put up a website.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

""Give it away and pray" works albeit in a somewhat limited fashion. Basically, you're trusting that people will like your content enough to purchase."

Lots of this stuff works, and diversifying makes sense. I gave away eBooks to a bunch of people, and some of those same people buy them from my site now (which I appreciate!). Others bought them once I made them available as a bundle for relatively cheap. The first wasn't exactly "give it away and pray", it was more like give it away and trust a certain percentage of folks to support you.

If you believe in the good in people and treat them as such, I've found you're generally going to be pleased with the results. I'm by no means making thousands of dollars in the first couple weeks of bundling my 3 novels, but I'm doing okay, and it means all the more to me when people actively choose to support what I do when they could get them for free (from me, no less) elsewhere....

Re:

You are a Southern California resident who rides a motorcycle, you are allowed to split lanes (yes, by law), and you avoid all the traffic jams because of these two facts. Suddenly your arm is broken. You can't ride a bike, but have a car that someone lets you borrow.

Do you:

A) Start getting up earlier than you used to/start giving yourself more time so you aren't late to work, assignments, or appointments?

B) Get up at the same time and give the same amount of time to get to work, assignments and appointments, thereby being late to everything?

I would guess you would do B) because why the fuck should you adapt to the way things are? Fuck that, you say! I'm going to do it the same way forever!

And before you ask, douchebag I got the idea from also did B), because he thinks he is irreplaceable as an editor/writer. You sound JUST LIKE this guy.

I'm sorry, Ms. Swartsel, but to a new startup building the next great platform, having to spend millions of dollars and a few years in court is a significant burden that can put many out of business.

Lawsuits are too costly. When people who are in the right are forced to settle because they can't afford to defend themselves, the justice system is broken.

Plaintiffs and defendants should be on equal footing. Money shouldn't be an advantage; lawsuits should decide who's right and who's wrong, not who's rich and who's poor.

As such, I suggest a change to the legal system: each side is required to declare the amount of money they spend on the lawsuit, and the one with the greater sum is required to allocate the difference between the two amounts to the other side's legal fund, so that both sides are always evenly matched.

Re: Look before you leap.

you make it sound like your content is soooo important, and valuable. it's a commodity like any other, and a luxury item as well. it is not a required sustenance such as food, or clothing, heat in the winter. get a life, the distribution model wasn't created to steal your ever so precious content, it just so happens to be an ideal platform to distribute your crap, and that's exactly what we did, distributed it. are you grumpy because ppl can now find out how horrible movies like cowboys and aliens was? it should have been called 'Harrison Ford needs a payday'.

Re: Re:

It absolutely computes! When I'm in meetings with the marketing folks, I act like I'm paying attention / awake. When I have to 'wow' the investors with a bunch of Star Trek-esque techno-babble I act like I'm not dying on the inside. I deserve a frickin' Oscar.

Re: Beltway trolls

Customer Abuse, Pure And Simple and Stupid

Way to go MPAA and RIAA. INSPIRE people to pirate your media if only in revenge for your longstanding and consistent customer abuse. You will never get the clue. You are far too stupid and self-destructive. Thus your biznizz fails. Where were these people when the brains were handed out...

Re: Look before you leap.

Even if I dislike their products (in general), I don't want to see their efforts stolen and enriching every smartass who can put up a website.

That's rather amusing, blue - because every time Techdirt presents an example of a content creator who is hindered by IP, your argument is along the lines of "their content sucks so it doesn't matter" or "the world is better off without that crap anyway"

You are more than happy to be subjective when it suits your purposes, so don't pretend you are all objective and rational now.

As I have pointed out a few times, it is about protecting content. But only their content, in their crap business model, where they get a cut all the time.

Anyone doing anything outside of them is just a cute anecdote, but it can't possibly be real.

But they fear this new technology that lets the customer decide how to get the content they want. So they seek to burden it and slow it down until they have time to suck the last drop from their dying model and are dragged kicking and screaming into the tech that was popular 15 years ago. Then suddenly that tech is not so bad any more.

The problem is they have found to many politicians willing to screw the people they ostensibly represent to protect the donations they pocket. The people get nothing but burdens to support an industry that seems to forget the protection for their content was granted by the people in exchange for the limited term.

The **AA's can not fail soon enough, they are determined to drag the entire country down the spiraling drain they keep circling. Screaming that every new idea is just another tool to steal from them, rather than consider it might be time to throw out the MBAs and lawyers and try something different.

Re:

Do you understand what you're writing? Or are you just passing around quotes?

IPv6 isn't widely implemented yet either, so should we just get rid of that and replace it with an MPAA approved version?

This viewpoint is about as ridiculous as me saying that because 3D isn't yet widely used in all forms of media you should just replace it all with an entirely new format.

There is a LOT of engineering/security and time invested into getting DNSSEC developed, deployed and standardized. All of this takes considerable time. I seriously doubt that Paul Vixie meant for his statements to be used in the way you are applying them.

Re: You call grifters "entrepreneurs", is all.

These "entrepreneurs" intend to use the value that content creators produce to funnel money their own way.

First of all: this is what every distributor, promoter, or "monetizer" does. And the new tech entrepreneurs treat artists far better than the legacy content industries.

Honestly, who do you think treats artists better? Kickstarter, or Hollywood studios? SoundCloud, or the major labels?

Your outrage on behalf of artists is noble, but completely misplaced.

Second of all: according to PROTECT IP's proponents, these are exactly the sort of people who are not supposed to be affected by the bill at all. The bill is supposed to target "rogue sites," and no others. Not a single signatory's company should ever be considered a "rogue site," yet they're the ones who will be most affected.

Re: Re:

Paul, IPV6 is well on it's way, it's in general use, it is supported by pretty much all browsers and modern operating systems, and is really only awaiting ISPs to step up and do their job.

The paper that Paul Vixie co-authored with 4 or 5 other people (I don't remember) made it clear: DNSSEC is not widely used, it isn't yet widely supported, etc. So pulling it back to make it meet the requirements of the law shouldn't be as hard as all that.

The problem is all the time invested hasn't gotten it deployed - and that was the key. It's not in wide use.

Re: Re: Look before you leap.

Most of content creators that are featured on Techdirt are either breaking copyright law to "create" on the back of someone else, or otherwise doing something that grandly infringes the works of others.

It's not surprised that many people consider it crap, mostly because it really doesn't add much to the culture, it just tosses in in a blender and feeds it back to us like pap.

Re:

Re: Re: Re: Look before you leap.

Most of content creators that are featured on Techdirt are either breaking copyright law to "create" on the back of someone else, or otherwise doing something that grandly infringes the works of others.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

the key word is pray, because you have nothing to bind them to the next sale.

There is no way to "bind them to the next sale." Not for Tim, not for the RIAA, not for anyone else.

Unless you're talking about food, rent, or other necessities, nobody pays for anything because they're "bound" to the next sale. They pay for items because they feel they're getting a good deal at the price you're asking.

The moment they don't feel that, they won't pay, no matter what business model you have.

And that is the problem with the legacy content industries. They are a government-granted economic cabal; because they had no competition, they were able to fix the price of their goods at their whim. They view their customers as people to be forced to pay what the industries want, rather than people who the must convince to give up money voluntarily.

Now that they actually have some competition from industries who don't actively hate their customers, they don't know what to do.

And that is what PROTECT IP is really about. If the MPAA really was concerned about "rogue websites," they would actually address the concerns the entrepreneurs, and possibly advocate making changes to the bill so that there's much less collateral damage. Instead, they mock the signatories and dismiss their arguments (along with everyone else's).

Re: Re: Re: Look before you leap.

Re: Re:

"They are in the content business Mike, not in the experimental business models business."

You know full-well that most were actually in the content lottery business because under your favoured model very, very few were ever successful or could make a decent living. With the technology available now people can experiment with business models that were never possible before and far more people can earn far more money. And that just drives you obsolete middlemen nuts!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Never mind. After doing some research it seams that the original link that was posted from Billboard was full of hot air. The jump may have been immediate but it wasn't sustained. And Nielsen seems to think the jump was because of the Beatles. The growth immediately dropped after that. That really doesn't seem consistent with a huge group of buyers that went immediately over to legal sales and stayed there.

And of course it ignores the fact that there are still lots of Limewire clones on the same network serving up tunes. Sounds like wishful thinking.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Look before you leap.

This. The only companies that are 'allowed' to use commercial content in their business models are the ones that would gobble the entire entertainment industry in one swallow if they were truly crossed. And even they are forced to pay ridiculous licensing fees in order to make it happen.

Open challenge: Name a single truly brilliant idea not involving copyrighted works that is as unprofitable as an equally brilliant idea that does.

Hint: Look at how little Apple and Amazon make off music sales at the end of the day.

Re: Re: Re:

You are very much missing the point -- probably willfully so.

The principles of DNSSEC to provide secure, trusted routing robust against interception are incompatible with the stance of PROTECT IP towards injecting false routes to disable access to certain websites.

To satisfy PROTECT IP is to precisely break the chain of security ensuring a user is routed to the requested address. It is not a matter of taking things back a step and making small changes. The two goals are mutually exclusive.

Re: Re: Re: You call grifters "entrepreneurs", is all.

At this point in time, the studios and labels.

What are you smoking? Have you seen how many content creators are rushing to these new platforms -- including those begging to get out of label contracts?

I'm losing track of artists telling me that using Kickstarter means they never have to sign an indentured servitude contract to the labels. The labels know this too. It's why they're behind PROTECT IP. They want to shut down sites like Kickstarter because it represents very real competition in that it actually treats musicians right.

Re: Re: Re: You call grifters "entrepreneurs", is all.

Ha! I can't tell if you're a troll, or just someone who hasn't actually known any artists personally.

As an example: with Kickstarter, you don't have to give up your copyrights. They take far less of a percentage of the money. They don't require that you pay back everything that they spent.

None of this is true with Hollywood studios or major labels. Those business models are predicated on exploiting their artists as much as is legally possible.

In fact, artists often use Kickstarter - successfully - to fund albums that the major labels wouldn't touch. That includes artists that sold many, many thousands of copies, but were dumped by their labels because they couldn't recoup.

Kickstarter may not have paid out as much, total, as majors at this point, but that's because fewer artists use it. On average, Kickstarter has paid out much more than the major labels per artist. And they are much less exploitative. Ask any artist which one is better.

And that's just one example. There are hundreds of new, artist-friendly business models springing up every year. PROTECT IP would hinder all of them.

Re: Re:

Re:

" What you really mean is that they failed to give it all away and pray"

If you actually read the site instead of attacking people with baseless assumptions, you'd know that "give it away and pray" is not only the opposite of what Mike usually promotes, but something he has specifically spoken out against on numerous occasions. As ever, facts are something alien to you,. and you just promote yourself as a moron every time you post.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"And what would those reasons be after this long?"

Higher quality product people are more willing to buy? Innovative legal services such as turntable.fm and Spotify that encourage greater listening levels? Cheaper pricing through Amazon promotions, etc. that actually lead to greater spending?

No, of course, it has to be the single factor you prefer to be the cause, with no real evidence except for a mild correlation in timescale.

" this ridiculous pro-piracy blog"

There's only one ridiculous thing here, and I suggest you find a mirror to look at it. There has NEVER been a word uttered by the article writers on this site actually promoting piracy, only suggesting how to make it not be a major problem. Yet, idiots like yourself can't tell the difference.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

This stupid pro-piracy blog has the same amount of people trying to rationalize their worthless behavior as it did a year ago, two years ago, five years ago, etc.

That's how effective your leech crusade is, Freetardo.

Life is short. You have a limited amount of time to do something worthwhile- like helping those in worse economic situations than the one you live in. Isn't it time you make at least some attempt at contributing to society instead of spending your time on message boards bitching about those that do?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"This stupid pro-piracy blog"

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this stupid lie, it doesn't make it true. You seem to delight in attacking the same people supporting your industry, par for the course for **AA members of course, but that doesn't make it any less idiotic.

"Freetardo"

Isn't your kindergarten class open yet? That's the only place this particular tactic works.

"Life is short. You have a limited amount of time to do something worthwhile"

Indeed. Which is why it's a shame to see you waste so much of that time with posts like this.

" Isn't it time you make at least some attempt at contributing to society instead of spending your time on message boards bitching about those that do?"

You first, please. I contribute plenty. Feel free to link to evidence of having spent any time of your life not being a wasteful contrarian asshole, because I've never seen any evidence here.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sorry, I used a word in a bad way, to try to explain something in a simple manner. I didn't realize you guys would jump all over it.

Let's try again.

If you give something the full product without restriction, there is nothing that encourages them to buy - and there is no connection between that free thing and the next desired sale.

More importantly, you have just taught them that the full product is free, if they wait long enough or pay attention or look around. You didn't teach them to buy.

See, when I use the word "bind", I am trying to say that marketing and advertising are done to bring people to making a buy decision on your product. The sale is bound to the advertising. When you give away the full product, you have eliminated the sale. You have removed the immediate goal of a sale, and replaced it with a much fuzzier "pray" as you hope they will (a) remember you, (b) come back to see you, and (c) even after getting the last one for free will choose to buy a full product at your full price.

It is, in simple terms, "give it away a pray".

Traditional marketing uses a "bind" to work towards the sale. You get a sample, a coupon, a discount, something that encourages the sale, or encourages some other desired result (like signing up to be a member of their team, or the proverbial +1 or like on facebook). They don't give it away and pray, they sample away and aim, aim, aim.

So sorry if the idea of "binding" a sale confused you. It wasn't intended the way you took it.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I understand completely. I also understand that a padlock, sitting on the desk unused, does nothing to add to security of your shed. If you aren't using it to lock the shed, don't complain about someone telling you that you have to change the way the lock mounts on your shed.

DNSSEC isn't being widely used. Plain and simple. To hold up a change of a law because of something that isn't widely used seems more than a little wasteful.

Re: Re: Re: Re: You call grifters "entrepreneurs", is all.

Since you asked, I happen to smoke Davidoff Demi-Tasse cigars. I also happen to try and choose words with some degree of care. Hence, "At this point in time..."

So that you will perhaps realize I am not predisposed to favor just one side of this debate, at this point in time alternate means of funding outside of the historic lable-centric scheme coming to the fore is in its relative infancy and will surely grow over time. My point is simply that new means of funding have quite a ways to go before they can make significant headway against the current scheme. As sources of funding, the labels are "Wall Street", and the newcomers are "Just-Getting-Started Drive". Only time will tell which of the newcomers will mount a truly credible challenge to the current system, at which time their potential customers, artists, will have alternate service providers to choose from.

Re: Re: Re: Re: You call grifters "entrepreneurs", is all.

It seems to me that what you are really saying is that artists have historically been limited to the "one game in town", labels with the financial and other resources useful to fund and move product. New sources of funding that will inevitably arise will eventually infuse competition into the "bankrolling" market, giving artists the opportunity to choose between the "old" and the "new". This should prove to be the game-changer, forcing the "old" to change their current practices to meet the competition.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You call grifters "entrepreneurs", is all.

" Only time will tell which of the newcomers will mount a truly credible challenge to the current system, at which time their potential customers, artists, will have alternate service providers to choose from"

Why don't we just face it.

The RIAA and MPAA etc do not in any way whatsoever stand for the interests of the content creators.

They are there 100% to make money themselves, and whether that involves collecting "performance fees" or filing mass lawsuits against their customers, or deliberately blacklisting content creators (ala McCarthyism) they will do it as long as it turns a profit.

The collection agencies policy simply put is that society, the arts, content creation and all human rights can simply go to hell as long as they can make a profit.

This means the RIAA and MPAA are deliberately and maliciously committing crimes against humanity,and should be arrested and charged by the governments of the world.

Re: Re: Re:

I disagree about IPv6 being in general use. VERY few endpoints on the net are ready for IPv6. While the major backbone providers are almost ready, there is a LONG way to go before we're ready to cut over. If you ceased IPv4 support right now, the Internet would cease to function for all but the most technical of individuals.

I also think you seriously underestimate the time required to get where we are today with DNSSEC. Unlike this law, DNSSEC isn't some fanciful idea that essentially won't be effective. It's implementation needs to continue as planned for the greater good of the ENTIRE Internet, not just to appease the MPAA/RIAA.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh, please. Microsoft is probably one of the most pirated OSes out there because their buggy software is too damned expensive, and they charge for customer support. It's only a 'necessity' because of all the software the people really /do/ value that runs on it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You call grifters "entrepreneurs", is all.

It seems to me that what you are really saying is that artists have historically been limited to the "one game in town", labels with the financial and other resources useful to fund and move product.

Mostly right, but I'm not just saying that... see below.

New sources of funding that will inevitably arise will eventually infuse competition into the "bankrolling" market, giving artists the opportunity to choose between the "old" and the "new".

Ah, there is a slight misunderstanding. The question was, "who treats artists better?" Not "who has a bigger market share?"

There are still quite a few legacy entities that are essentially closed to anyone not on a major label (much less an indie). Radio, TV, national magazines (e.g. Rolling Stone), and larger venues are examples. You're right, it will take a long time for up-and-coming music distributors to make inroads into those.

However, if you are a musician, you are, right now, more likely to make money with Kickstarter than you are signing to a major label. The labels have a 90% failure rate; that is, 90% of their artists are unrecouped (according to the RIAA).

Kickstarter doesn't have anywhere close to that failure rate. The failure rate is still higher than is desirable; according to Kickstarter themselves, only 44% of the projects reach their funding goals. But it's still a vast improvement over the labels.

This should prove to be the game-changer, forcing the "old" to change their current practices to meet the competition.

One certainly hopes so. Unfortunately, the major labels have instead taken money from sources where they traditionally didn't before, including performance payouts and merchandise (so-called "360 deals").

And, just look at the subject under discussion. Lobbying the government to pass laws that protect their monopoly, is hardly "changing their current practices to meet the competition."

So the outlook - at least in the short term - is fairly bleak. The question is: will the labels recognize their failures and adapt before they fail utterly?

It would be great if they did, because it would likely result in more power for the artists themselves. But I've seen no indication that it will happen. Every music industry innovation in the past fifteen years has come from someone else.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you give something the full product without restriction, there is nothing that encourages them to buy - and there is no connection between that free thing and the next desired sale.

Two things:

1. If your full product is something that even can be given away for free, with no reproduction costs... then you already have a "give it away and pray" model, whether you like it or not.

2. The notion that you did not create a "connection" to the next desired sale, is completely false. If people enjoy the free good, you've just created a willing consumer for your non-free goods - whether those "goods" are "value added services," different (non-free) products, or even non-free versions of the same product.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: You call grifters "entrepreneurs", is all.

@Masnick

Two questions:

First, how does Kickstarter relate to the Protect IP Act? it's a dotcom, Protect IP applies to foreign sites. Second, drafts of COICA (the first version of Protect IP Act were circulating before Kickstarter was around. The music industry was behind those efforts too. Are there other sites that do what kickstarter does and have ben around longer?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You call grifters "entrepreneurs", is all.

When you say "artist" who do you mean? The director, actor, grip, costumer, makeup artist, stylist. I trust you aren't characterizing the producer as an "artist".

Well, I'm a musician, so my views are mainly geared towards that art. (Hence the figures I posted.)

As far as movies go: Kickstarter has also been used to produce indie films, and generally speaking, everyone who worked on those films (producers included) got more from Kickstarter than they did from the studio system.

And I don't think I need to mention that Hollywood studios are rather infamous for shelving projects that they don't believe are profitable. If the signatories' companies can help those otherwise-shelved projects actually happen (which many do), then why should their concerns be disregarded?

As far as whether "producers" are "artists" - if you mean the actual role that is played when creating a film, then they're just as important as directors, actors, grips, and so forth. (Producers determine shooting schedules, scout locations, acquire props and equipment, etc.) If, on the other hand, you mean "studio executives," then I would say no.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You call grifters "entrepreneurs", is all.

Thanks Karl. Can you give me the names of some of the indies that Kickstarter has funded.

You're a bit off describing producers duties though unless you talking about a micro-budget film. They're generally managers. I'd be surprised if anyone other than the producer and/or director benefits by Kickstarter funding. They're generally the business "owner" and all of the artists, writers and crafts people are wage earners whose claim to the creative rights are nil.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You call grifters "entrepreneurs", is all.

First, how does Kickstarter relate to the Protect IP Act? it's a dotcom, Protect IP applies to foreign sites.

I don't work for Kickstarter, so I can't speak for them. Why don't you ask them?

But you're wrong in saying that PROTECT IP only impacts foreign sites. As we've explained (I guess you didn't bother to read the letter), the mechanism for making PROTECT IP work is by putting liability and compliance demands on US companies. Like Kickstarter.

Second, drafts of COICA (the first version of Protect IP Act were circulating before Kickstarter was around. The music industry was behind those efforts too. Are there other sites that do what kickstarter does and have ben around longer?

I'm not sure what the timing of when COICA was being planned has to do with anything.

You're a bit off describing producers duties though unless you talking about a micro-budget film.

It depends. On larger projects, there are "executive producers" (which is what you seem to mean) and "line producers" (which is closer to what I meant). On major motion pictures, there is usually a team of each type, but in smaller films, they're usually the same person.

And, generally speaking, the producer doesn't hold the copyright to the film either. That is held by the studio itself, as a business entity. That may not be true for indie films (since the producer is often the one who acquired the script rights before production even began), but it really depends. But you're right that the artists, writers, makeup artists, etc. do not have any ownership interest in the copyright, as they are "work for hire."

"You're a bit off describing producers duties though unless you talking about a micro-budget film. They're generally managers."

Yes and no. There's different types of producers on many movies. Some would be like "executive" producers, who usually pony up some cash but no creative input whatsoever. Others manage the funding and intervene on set if things are going the wrong way or if major disasters have to be fought, but otherwise don't spent much time on set. Others spend their entire time as close to the set as possible, procuring as much as possible for the director as possible, including some jobs that would traditionally be the work of a location scout, 2nd line director and so on.

Since these are totally independent, low budget movies being referred to, the latter is the much more likely role.

"They're generally the business "owner" and all of the artists, writers and crafts people are wage earners whose claim to the creative rights are nil."

Only if you're talking about a studio. For one, Karl's clearly talking about pure indies - the types of people who would have funded movies purely from credit cards and loans from friends in past eras (think Peter Jackson, Robert Rodriguez, Kevin Smith, etc.) or who would have had to wait for government / school funding. These people usually take on multiple roles and operate very differently from the studio setup you seem to be thinking of.

Secondly, producers for a indie flick tend to be much closer to the material than a studio producer. They do have a lot of creative input in many circumstances, even if it's just a case of "no, we can't afford to shoot a 5 minute action sequence, how about this instead?". The closer a producer is to the material, the more creative input he tends to have (sometimes a good thing, sometimes not).

Thirdly, I do find it interesting that you agree that the money men don't have a right to any creative aspect of the work. Are you admitting that all the copyright changes, that have simply protected the profit of those people, do not do anything for the creative side of the equation?